The manuscript entitled “Virtual field trips as a tool for indirect geomorphological experience: A case study from the southeast part of the Gulf of Corinth, Greece” is of a very interesting topic. It presents a virtual fieldtrip with five stops at the southeastern part of the tectonically active Gulf of Corinth created using the Google Earth platform. The paper describes briefly the geomorphology – geoarchaeology of the sites and presents the opinion of the students about their experience of visiting the area virtually.

It is very important that the authors clarify that virtual fieldtrips cannot and should not replace real fieldtrips but could act as a tool to better understand the geology-geomorphology of an area or for a student to “remember” what he has seen in the field. Additionally, activities such as “real” sampling (of any kind of samples and for any purpose) and mapping of landforms or studying the stratigraphy of a profile are necessary during a fieldtrip.

The manuscript is well written and well structured. Since it is a “different type of paper”, I mean not a case study of a “classic” geomorphological research, I cannot judge if the description of the sites should be given in that detail since the results of the paper include only the answers of the students. I am not a native speaker but I think that the paper reads well.

Here are some very minor suggestions that in my opinion could improve the final version of the paper:

At the “Materials and Methods” section the authors should add a couple of sentences about the technical part of the design of the platform in Google Earth.

The results regarding the opinion of the students are well presented and explained. The findings from the answers of the students could be presented in diagrams. Maybe just one figure showing the percentages of the student’s answers in the main questions could be added.

Overall, the concept is a really good one and I applaud the authors for trying this technique and monitoring its impact on their students. I would have liked to see much more about how the students were evaluated and the results from the data that was collected. I also felt that there was too much detail on each of the stops and not enough about the interface and the way that the students engaged with it. I am attaching a pdf with some additional suggestions.